Friday, April 19, 2013

Review - Trance (2013)

Danny Boyle tries his hand at a twisty, mindbending noir with this heist thriller and
while the results are characteristically dynamic and compelling in terms of style and
performance, the story gets so mired in upending our expectations that the complete package
isn’t always narratively satisfying.

James McAvoy is Simon, an employee at an auction house who
serves as the inside man for the theft of a valuable Goya painting.
However, Simon’s rash decision to improvise earns him with a knock on the head
courtesy of gang leader Franck (Vincent Cassel) and a case of amnesia
regarding where he’s stashed the painting. Franck, desperate to find the loot,
arranges for some sessions between Simon and hypnotherapist Elizabeth (Rosario
Dawson) to draw the location of the painting from Simon’s
cloudy subconscious.

The concept of memory, or more specifically, memory loss,
is a noir staple and well-suited to the genre since it immediately puts the
protagonist suffering from it, and consequently the audience, on uncertain
ground, unsure of who or what to trust. However, in most cases the audience can
take at least some comfort in being relatively sure of the protagonist’s
motives and of being able to put together the pieces alongside that character.
Even in as disorienting a mystery film as Memento, to which there are some key
similarities here, we can understand Guy Pearce’s goals and sympathize with his
efforts to cut through his confusion. It’s okay if we’re confused because we
know he is too.

However, Boyle and screenwriters John Hodge and Joe Ahearn
have taken the concept of the unreliable protagonist to another
level. Normally the revelation that our main character isn’t who he or she
seems comes as a surprise to us. Here we’re not only given characters we can’t
trust from the outset but the filmmakers up the ante by not even giving us
clarity as to exactly who our protagonist is. Is it Simon, duplicitous even to
the audience from the opening monologue and possibly as much of a mystery to
himself as to us? Is it Elizabeth, whose lingering looks at Simon from their first
meeting and enthusiasm for getting involved in this criminal enterprise suggest she’s holding back some secrets as well?

These questions leave us constantly re-evaluating our perceptions. Normally this would be ideal for this type of thriller but the sheer volume of deceptions, double-crosses and
possible triple-crosses becomes such a morass of ambiguity that it can be hard
to get our footing. This isn’t aided by some big coincidences and a fair amount
of implausibility, particularly the flimsy rationales that Elizabeth uses to manipulate her way deeper into
the gang's scheme and the highly questionable depiction of hypnotism and its uses. The mental
exercise required to navigate all this is rewarded by some genuine surprises in
the film’s second half. However, just when we might be dramatically satisfied, Boyle
and company try one trick too many with a final climatic twist that either
makes little sense given what’s been established or suggests such drastic
implications for some of the characters that it really needs more time to be
dealt with than is offered.

Boyle always puts together great looking movies and this is
no exception. He’s managed to develop an interesting visual style over his
filmography that is adaptable to each production and yet somehow personally distinctive. True to noir style, London is depicted in sleek lines and cool, steely hues, while Boyle's more off-kilter impulses are indulged in
Simon’s stylized trance sessions, which are often disrupted by random, disturbing
imagery as the line between his hypnotized state and his
reality begins to blur.

The acting is predictably fine as well. McAvoy is well cast,
using his natural charm to beguile us into wanting to sympathize with him even
if we’re not sure we should, and Dawson does a solid job conveying Elizabeth’s
laser-sharp perception. Cassel, no
stranger to playing sleazy villains, is in a unique position as Franck. While
he is a brutal criminal and would seem to be the ostensible
villain, he is also the only character we have a pretty good grasp on from
the start, making him simultaneously threatening and comforting.

Watching the film, there are many small hints and clues
about what's going on that would
seem to make the film ideal for repeat viewings, but I suspect watching it again
would make the story’s potential plot holes that much more obvious. However, the quality of the production and the actors make sorting through its stylish disorientation worth a look. I just wouldn't recommend reflecting on it much once the credits roll. Sometimes memory can be treacherous.